Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

[Little Raven]

i would say that much of life involves cognitive dissonance. I haven't found atheists to be any more consistent in their beliefs than believers

Bingo. The universe is too vast for the human consciousness to navigate fully. Everyone ends up taking shortcuts.

[Skinypupy]

Romney might bring Utah with him?

Not a chance in hell.

Mormons by and large don't like Trump, but they'll still hold their nose and vote for him (or vote third party) before voting for a dirty, socialist Democrat.

One of the multitude of things that confuse me in life is this stance by religious people. To me it seems as though Joe Biden, in spite of being for a large number of things they would not be, yet they stand by tRump while he openly practices nearly everything they profess to believe is wrong. I just do not get it at all.

Two things come to mind:

1. Lots of single-issue voters (abortion).
2. Trump throws around the "religious freedom" thing a lot. Mormons (along with most Christians, in my experience) feel like they're being unfairly "persecuted" because they can no longer just do anything they want with no repercussions, and Trump and/or other conservatives feeds into that fear.

People are willing to overlook all other faults if those two are at play.

[pr0ner]

Sometimes progressives want to eat their own.

Sometimes? That's the preferred Progressive pass-time. It's one of the reasons they remain so politically impotent - a progressive can only remain pure so long as they remain powerless.

Speaking of:

https://www.twitter.com/posadist_trapgd ... 7580160003

[malchior]

I'm gay and I'm fine with it.

I do assume that his speech is vetted beforehand, though, but I'm fine with it. These are not normal times. We need all good Americans on all sides to come together right now.

Seriously, this is "war". The US and Great Britain didn't kick the Soviets to the curb when it came to fighting Hitler because they were brutal communists.

Except this is more like the French partisans. They could be useful, they could hurt you but you will probably still win without them.

Edit: I agree though that it's good that Kasich isn't running or being "pulled into the party" at least because his quasi anti-female stuff from 2016 hopefully won't be dredged up. However, his abortion policy is going to be relevant and there'll be noise. Maybe it'll be over quickly or it'll stick. Too early to say. It's a risk though.

[Little Raven]

Except this is more like the French partisans. They could be useful, they could hurt you but you will probably still win without them.

There is no possibility of this hurting. Anyone who is too butt-hurt to vote for Biden because Kasich spoke at the convention was never going to be a reliable voter anyway. They would invariably find some other reason to boycott the party.

[Grifman]

Except this is more like the French partisans. They could be useful, they could hurt you but you will probably still win without them.

Uh, I thought we shouldn't get complacent, that we need every vote we can get? Or are you saying this is already in the bag?

[malchior]

Except this is more like the French partisans. They could be useful, they could hurt you but you will probably still win without them.

There is no possibility of this hurting.

Really? No possibility whatsoever? Ask Hillary about what she thinks now about the risks she didn't see then.

Anyone who is too butt-hurt to vote for Biden because Kasich spoke at the convention was never going to be a reliable voter anyway. They would invariably find some other reason to boycott the party.

Voters are inherently unreliable as a whole. That's the point. Every decision has risk/reward. This could work out but having complete certainty there is no risk and that the reward outweighs it is dangerous. That said, this election may have less undecided voters flipping last minute like 2016...or that could change. It is going to get very messy any time now.

[malchior]

Except this is more like the French partisans. They could be useful, they could hurt you but you will probably still win without them.

Uh, I thought we shouldn't get complacent, that we need every vote we can get? Or are you saying this is already in the bag?
[/quote]Probably doesn't mean 'already in the bag'. Also this isn't aboout complacence. My theory is this is riskier than it appears at first glance and his endorsement probably isn't all that necessary.

[YellowKing]

I didn't realize Kasich was also an extreme homophobe. I don't really pay attention to him at all. So yeah, probably not the best choice.

[malchior]

I didn't realize Kasich was also an extreme homophobe. I don't really pay attention to him at all. So yeah, probably not the best choice.

This is all I'm asking people to consider. And to an earlier point maybe there isn't a clean moderate Republican. And that's ok. You aren't trying to rehab them. There has to be a tangible benefit. If he drastically improves the chance of swinging Ohio, it is probably a good trade off if he doesn't say lose you another swing state that needs more suburban women who care about this stuff.

In any case, AFAIK they haven't officially announced it. The language is 'expected to' - it could just be a trial balloon. And that's ok too. It doesn't hurt to try things out but everything is on the line. I am very afraid skeptical about these 'big idea' Democratic party moments. They sometimes backfire drastically.

[ImLawBoy]

The risk that this hurts Biden in a swing state seems really low to me. The Ds aren't going to be changing their positions based on Kasich speaking and he's almost assuredly not going to advocate for a pro-life or anti-LGBTQ+ rights position during a speech. The negatives of this will largely be felt on Twitter, which probably isn't the most reliable indicator of how the country is leaning. Kasich is much more likely in my opinion going to convince moderate Rs that they can get in bed with the Ds for this one election to try to purge their system of Trump.

The odds of this moving any Biden voters to Trump are virtually nil. The bigger risk is that Biden voters choose to sit this one out (or vote 3rd party) feeling that nothing is worth it. I just don't see that being terribly likely given that we've seen what a term of Trump has done to this country - we know that a term of Biden will be better, even if it's not ideal. The Twitter warrior-purists will get signal amplified a bit, but this isn't the same as Hillary taking some voters for granted. Anyone who probably jumps ship because of this was probably going to find some excuse to jump ship anyway (crime bill, perceived cronyism, etc.).

[Isgrimnur]

I didn't realize Kasich was also an extreme homophobe. I don't really pay attention to him at all. So yeah, probably not the best choice.

I mean, he's no Santorum...

[Jaymon]

Its clear that this is a campaign stunt, but I think its a good one. Instead of just saying words about compromise and working across party lines, Biden and team have action to back it up. I believe its going to cause more good for Bidens campaign than harm. Biden is a career politician. Working across lines for compromise is nothing new to him, but we americans have a short memory these days. Anybody remember back 5 or 7 years ago when he hammered out multi party deals? ? No? So its important that he get a new showing of that right out in front.

As for which republican to choose, well I wonder how long they searched before they found somebody they could 1) tolerate and 2) was willing to do it.

[Fireball]

Sometimes progressives want to eat their own. John Kasich has been invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention on Biden's behalf.

Is this really the progressives eating their own? The only moderate Republican they could find is Kasich? I have no problem with him personally but I'm also not female.

The progressives comment is directed to the negative response to the Kasich invite because how dare Biden invite someone who isn't 100% pro-choice to speak. I think it's brilliant that Biden wants Kasich to speak - this is the kind of thing that appeals to me as someone who voted for Kasich in the 2016 GOP primary.

I know. You seem to be totally missing the legitimate issue raised that some might have with the invite. It isn't brilliant at all. It is tone deaf.

I certainly get why some people would really dislike Kasich, and why it would get some people upset. But the outrage is somewhat contingent on the logic that inviting someone to speak means endorsing all of their views. Kasich would be there to speak to disaffected Republicans, particularly in the midwest (and especially Ohio). I'm sure that they would make sure that he's not going to make a pro-life pitch as part of his speech (and I doubt that he would do that anyway.

Anyway, if you follow the logic that inviting Kasich is a betrayal of the pro-choice view, then it would quickly become impossible to have a convention anyway, given the coalition nature of the Democratic Party. There are non-trivial numbers of pro-life Democrats, and there are going to be many many speakers with pro-choice views at the convention. Same with a lot of issues - to put together a national coalition, you need to include people who are going to strongly disagree on some issues but are willing to come together on others.

Jesus christ on a stick. I agree in general but Kasich *in particular* is not palatable to *many* probably *most Females* in the party and is also anti-LGBT to boot. This isn't a hard one. Seriously. This feels like a decision made without a single female voice in the room.

I detest John Kasich. But there are a lot of disaffected Republicans who see themselves in Kasich, and if him appearing in support of Biden brings some of them on board then fine. It doesn’t actually change what Biden is running to do, or what Biden and a Democratic Congress would be able to achieve in office.

When fighting to save the world, I’ll team up with Stalin to defeat Hitler every single time.

[Holman]

Except this is more like the French partisans. They could be useful, they could hurt you but you will probably still win without them.

There is no possibility of this hurting.

Really? No possibility whatsoever? Ask Hillary about what she thinks now about the risks she didn't see then.

Anyone who is too butt-hurt to vote for Biden because Kasich spoke at the convention was never going to be a reliable voter anyway. They would invariably find some other reason to boycott the party.

Voters are inherently unreliable as a whole. That's the point. Every decision has risk/reward. This could work out but having complete certainty there is no risk and that the reward outweighs it is dangerous. That said, this election may have less undecided voters flipping last minute like 2016...or that could change. It is going to get very messy any time now.

Quick: who was the speaker at the 2016 convention you liked least? Who didn't deserve to be there?

Spoiler:

Bloomberg spoke. At the time, he was a former Republican and Independent (never yet even a Democrat) unpopular with the Left, and he even made not being a Democrat part of his speech. Do you even remember it?

Progressives (including Bernie and the entire Squad) will be well represented at the 2020 convention, including especially the shaping of the party platform. They'll probably all have speaking roles. Including someone like Kasich shows that the anti-Trump effort is a wide and necessary fight.

[malchior]

Except this is more like the French partisans. They could be useful, they could hurt you but you will probably still win without them.

There is no possibility of this hurting.

Really? No possibility whatsoever? Ask Hillary about what she thinks now about the risks she didn't see then.

Anyone who is too butt-hurt to vote for Biden because Kasich spoke at the convention was never going to be a reliable voter anyway. They would invariably find some other reason to boycott the party.

Voters are inherently unreliable as a whole. That's the point. Every decision has risk/reward. This could work out but having complete certainty there is no risk and that the reward outweighs it is dangerous. That said, this election may have less undecided voters flipping last minute like 2016...or that could change. It is going to get very messy any time now.

Quick: who was the speaker at the 2016 convention you liked least? Who didn't deserve to be there?

Spoiler:

Bloomberg spoke. At the time, he was a former Republican and Independent (never yet even a Democrat) unpopular with the Left, and he even made not being a Democrat part of his speech. Do you even remember it?

Yeah I remember him speaking and this is hardly the right swap out/comparison.

Progressives (including Bernie and the entire Squad) will be well represented at the 2020 convention, including especially the shaping of the party platform. They'll probably all have speaking roles. Including someone like Kasich shows that the anti-Trump effort is a wide and necessary fight.

It does...sort of. We'll see how it plays out. Hopefully he speaks and nothing bad comes of it.

The negatives of this will largely be felt on Twitter, which probably isn't the most reliable indicator of how the country is leaning.

I agree on Twitter. It isn't representative. However, it is more about its influence than a gauge of the electorate. It is the idea factory for a lot of the die hard political activism as well as news and political horse race coverage so it is important to be aware of what the mood is there.

[Fireball]

I think that a lot of people in the media and in political circles have figured out that Twitter is always wrong about internal Democratic party battles.

[Alefroth]

Quick: who was the speaker at the 2016 convention you liked least? Who didn't deserve to be there?

Spoiler:

Bloomberg spoke. At the time, he was a former Republican and Independent (never yet even a Democrat) unpopular with the Left, and he even made not being a Democrat part of his speech. Do you even remember it?

Speaking of

Spoiler:

Bloomberg

he didn't really come through on his pledge to support the Democratic nominee with $1B, did he?

[Isgrimnur]

NPR, March 20

Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg has decided against creating a super PAC that was expected to spend unlimited sums to take on President Trump and instead is transferring $18 million to the Democratic National Committee.

"While we considered creating our own independent entity to support the nominee and hold the president accountable, this race is too important to have many competing groups with good intentions but that are not coordinated and united in strategy and execution," Bloomberg's team wrote in a memo to Tom Perez, the chairman of the DNC.
...
Bloomberg also previously suggested to The New York Times that he would be open to spending up to $1 billion.

So, the $18 million transfer, while historically large, is still far smaller than what some had expected as Democrats prepare to take on a well-funded Republican Party apparatus in support of Trump.
...
Since suspending his campaign, Bloomberg has also given money to a number of left-leaning groups: Collective Future, Swing Left and Voto Latino, for example.

[Defiant]

Personally, I'd rather he spend the money on house/senate/local races. There's so much money that's spent on the presidential race (and some senate races) that it's gone well past the point of diminishing returns and throwing more money is just noise.

[RunningMn9]

The progressives comment is directed to the negative response to the Kasich invite because how dare Biden invite someone who isn't 100% pro-choice to speak. I think it's brilliant that Biden wants Kasich to speak - this is the kind of thing that appeals to me as someone who voted for Kasich in the 2016 GOP primary.

I agree with this. At this point, there is a single prize. ONE. PRIZE. No more Trump. Nothing else matters.

Bring as many people in as want to achieve that goal. You want to unify the country? You bring in people that believe in different things, but who all share a common goal. Having Kasich speak doesn’t mean that Biden is suddenly going to be pro-life.

[Unagi]

The progressives comment is directed to the negative response to the Kasich invite because how dare Biden invite someone who isn't 100% pro-choice to speak. I think it's brilliant that Biden wants Kasich to speak - this is the kind of thing that appeals to me as someone who voted for Kasich in the 2016 GOP primary.

I agree with this. At this point, there is a single prize. ONE. PRIZE. No more Trump. Nothing else matters.

Bring as many people in as want to achieve that goal. You want to unify the country? You bring in people that believe in different things, but who all share a common goal. Having Kasich speak doesn’t mean that Biden is suddenly going to be pro-life.

totally agree.

[Kraken]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. For now.

[Isgrimnur]

CNN

Prosecutors have said in court that new charges in the case against Parnas and the other defendants are likely, but they have not specified which charges or when they might be filed. The case is scheduled to go to trial in early October, which would mean testimony involving Trump's circle could emerge in the final weeks of the 2020 presidential election campaign.

[Grifman]

Biden inviting Kasich is all a part of his strategy and how he sees the world. And his strategy is working, at least for now. according to this interesting analysis:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... n-election

Tucked into this argument is Biden’s view of the Republican Party: He sees it not as a monolith but as a coalition. Some members of that coalition love Trump and will grieve his defeat. They’re not going to work with Biden, and he doesn’t expect to work with them. But some Senate Republicans dislike Trump, regret what their party has become, and are looking for redemption. What they need is a Democrat they can work with — a Democrat who doesn’t antagonize their voters and won’t rub their noses in their loss. What they need, Biden thinks, is Biden.

But this isn’t just Biden’s theory of governing. It’s also his theory of the campaign.

The key to Biden’s success is simple: He’s slicing into Trump’s coalition, pulling back the older, whiter voters Democrats lost in 2016. The Biden campaign’s insight is that mobilization is often the flip side of polarization: When party activists are sharply divided by ideology and demography, what excites your side will be the very thing that unnerves the other side. Studies of House elections show this dynamic in action: Ideologically extreme candidates perform worse than moderates because they drive up turnout on the other side.

Biden’s theory of wavering Trump voters is the same as his theory of wavering Republican senators: He thinks they want to vote with him but need help getting over their political hang-ups about voting for a Democrat. And so he is trying to give them that help. He praises the old Republican Party, refuses to pick a side in American politics’ hottest fights. Biden has resisted calls to abolish private insurance, ban fracking, decriminalize immigration, and defund the police. It’s cost him enthusiasm on the left, but it has denied Trump the clear foil he needs. That’s left Trump confused, pathetically insisting Biden holds positions Biden doesn’t hold and getting fact-checked live on Fox.

A lot of people here thought Biden was naive and crazy when talking trying to work with Republicans. And maybe he was crazy - crazy like a fox. I think his strategy is smart - Demcrats can't stand Trump, Biden's going to get their support. and they are going to turn out like the mid terms. What Biden needs to do is wean some Republicans away from Trump. Yes, he's getting help from Trump's incompetence with respect the virus, so it would be much closer but in the end, I think this is the right strategy.

[LordMortis]

I honestly don't agree with that desire, but then I'm not excited for voting for Biden, but I will.

That should help his campaign but I personally believe the time for reaching across the aisle is past. The time is finding a way to hold your party together while welcoming refuges and independents, even conservatives to the democratic conversation to lay the what the GOP has become to rest. I'd feel much better about who we are as a nation if Kasich turns on the GOP and Democrats accept him as an outlier who works with them... Like I am. ... Hello bias...

[malchior]

Biden inviting Kasich is all a part of his strategy and how he sees the world. And his strategy is working, at least for now. according to this interesting analysis:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... n-election

Tucked into this argument is Biden’s view of the Republican Party: He sees it not as a monolith but as a coalition. Some members of that coalition love Trump and will grieve his defeat. They’re not going to work with Biden, and he doesn’t expect to work with them. But some Senate Republicans dislike Trump, regret what their party has become, and are looking for redemption. What they need is a Democrat they can work with — a Democrat who doesn’t antagonize their voters and won’t rub their noses in their loss. What they need, Biden thinks, is Biden.

But this isn’t just Biden’s theory of governing. It’s also his theory of the campaign.

The key to Biden’s success is simple: He’s slicing into Trump’s coalition, pulling back the older, whiter voters Democrats lost in 2016. The Biden campaign’s insight is that mobilization is often the flip side of polarization: When party activists are sharply divided by ideology and demography, what excites your side will be the very thing that unnerves the other side. Studies of House elections show this dynamic in action: Ideologically extreme candidates perform worse than moderates because they drive up turnout on the other side.

Biden’s theory of wavering Trump voters is the same as his theory of wavering Republican senators: He thinks they want to vote with him but need help getting over their political hang-ups about voting for a Democrat.

And so he is trying to give them that help. He praises the old Republican Party, refuses to pick a side in American politics’ hottest fights. Biden has resisted calls to abolish private insurance, ban fracking, decriminalize immigration, and defund the police. It’s cost him enthusiasm on the left, but it has denied Trump the clear foil he needs. That’s left Trump confused, pathetically insisting Biden holds positions Biden doesn’t hold and getting fact-checked live on Fox.

A lot of people here thought Biden was naive and crazy when talking trying to work with Republicans. And maybe he was crazy - crazy like a fox.

There are two things here. As to the theory of governing. I'd say that is problematic. In the sense that a Republican change of heart has little grounding in objective reality. It might happen but it wasn't like Trump came along and the Republican party went haywire. They were haywire the entirety of the Obama administration. They were mostly haywire most of the Bush administration. They were haywire for a lot of the Clinton administration. I hope it goes the way Biden thinks but there is no evidence this will happen other than this idle chatter. They might be a coalition but don't *act like a coalition* when it comes to official action. They vote in lock step. They message in almost complete lock step. That isn't going to melt away. That is like believing coronavirus is going to vanish on its own someday. After years of the GOP going off the rails thinking that Biden is being a bit naive when he says they'll work with him...is still pretty reasonable. Until proven otherwise.

I think his strategy is smart - Demcrats can't stand Trump, Biden's going to get their support. and they are going to turn out like the mid terms. What Biden needs to do is wean some Republicans away from Trump. Yes, he's getting help from Trump's incompetence with respect the virus, so it would be much closer but in the end, I think this is the right strategy.

On the theory of the campaign, this I agree with...to a degree. He has the Democrats. However, Clinton found out the hard way that you can depress your own turnout. Biden has to walk a little of that line and he has via his platform. Even then it isn't a done deal. There is a lot of campaign left and the Progressives are morphing into their own 'tea party element'. They are very skeptical of the Democratic party. He has to be at least careful of that. As an analog, assuming that they had the White working class worker in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania got us Trump and is dangerous thinking. Maybe going after Kasich doesn't do much to the coalition but he still needs to have coalition awareness. But this gets to the important thing. Gestures like this matter may far more to the political pundit class than the voters.

David Shor sat with NY mag and he talked over electoral "math" that has been governing from a data centric point of view. He has ideas on coalition building that I think are right on the money. The big tent/big idea stuff that we see from traditional Democrats aka Biden and call brilliant is actually tried and failed Democratic party CW. It doesn't work reliably. As Holman pointed out Bloomberg spoke at the last one. They reach out all the time but that doesn't win elections. You have to *target* the right people via policy. Shor says the data shows that they should be optimizing on what is popular broadly and not antagonizing on the wedge issues. That part Biden is getting correct on the *left* as noted in the article above. Avoiding the hot button issues is indeed smart. Don't push people towards Trump. The trouble is walking into traps from the *right*. I don't think Kasich will spring one but Biden has to be careful.

Another interesting thing to consider going back to Biden's theory on governing was that Shor talked about a trend that I was unaware of. It is that broadband brings polarization. Voters are becoming better informed about the actual issues and it has driven some of the 'randomness' out of the system. The upshot is that due to the structure of the Senate and EC, the system as it stands gives the Republicans a control advantage. It extends to control of State Governments as well that'll prevent Constitutional adjustments to resolve some of the internal political pressures. He was talking how 'neutral' elections like a potential 2024 where there might not be an incumbent might see drastic shifts of the Senate *towards the GOP*. Something like 57 seats based on the current GOP lean. Further, he is thinking that the EC will start to reliably deliver a 3-4 point popular vote bias bonus advantage to the Republicans over the decade. So absent a candidate as completely shambolic as Trump, the Republicans can pretty much run anyone and win as long as they walk their line. The Democrats might have to win the popular vote by historically larger and larger margins. Unless they want to dramatically shift their policy but that could shatter their coalition as well. They are in a bit of a bind.

In the end, that isn't sustainable and snapping back to Biden, he doesn't even talk about anything that addresses that systematic problem we face ahead. It seems to be all about surviving today. I get it but that's why I personally think he appears naive. Maybe he is playing a game and intends to push for change. However until we see that proven I'll be skeptical. Bottom line, no matter what unless they smash huge this year, this might be one of the last elections where we can change the course of the nation before it changes permanently into something else.

[Holman]

I'm not worried about Biden giving too much away to Republicans when it is very clear that he is happy with the Dem platform moving left.

His outreach to Republicans (which is of course only to the most centrist of Republicans) is mostly a signal that he wants to be a president for all Americans, something that smartly defines him against Trump once again. But I don't see any sign of him trying to pull the party rightward. Quite the opposite.

[noxiousdog]

There are two things here. As to the theory of governing. I'd say that is problematic. In the sense that a Republican change of heart has little grounding in objective reality. It might happen but it wasn't like Trump came along and the Republican party went haywire. They were haywire the entirety of the Obama administration. They were mostly haywire most of the Bush administration. They were haywire for a lot of the Clinton administration. I hope it goes the way Biden thinks but there is no evidence this will happen other than this idle chatter. They might be a coalition but don't *act like a coalition* when it comes to official action. They vote in lock step. They message in almost complete lock step. That isn't going to melt away. That is like believing coronavirus is going to vanish on its own someday. After years of the GOP going off the rails thinking that Biden is being a bit naive when he says they'll work with him...is still pretty reasonable. Until proven otherwise.

I think this is valid, but I am optimistic that the current state of the Republican party is the inevitable outcome of those decades of strategy. So, either the US winds up authoritarian, or there's a rejection of this Republican party. I think too many eyes have been opened (mine, RM9, Yellowking for example) that this Republican party is dead. The demographics aren't working in their favor either.

If the Republicans get a beat down in the Senate and the Electoral College, I don't believe they can double down. They may try, but it's more likely other conservative coalitions come to the forefront.

[El Guapo]

There are for sure major structural problems with the American constitutional / electoral system. The electoral college is a real problem, although what I've read has suggested that who benefits from it changes over time - IIRC Obama got a boost from the EC in 2012, for example.

I'm more worried about the Senate, because its undemocratic structure is only going to get worse over time and because it's harder to fix, since the constitution doesn't allow equal representation by state to change without a state's consent (not even by amendment). There are patches to balance the Senate politically by admitting DC + PR, but I'm not sure what else could be done, unless we start divvying up states.

[LordMortis]

I think too many eyes have been opened (mine, RM9, Yellowking for example) that this Republican party is dead. The demographics aren't working in their favor either.

I am looking forward to the day I can be an independent voter again in anything other than name. I don't see how that can happen until this republican party is completely neutered... Well that or the democrats will have to completely shit the bed.

[malchior]

There are for sure major structural problems with the American constitutional / electoral system. The electoral college is a real problem, although what I've read has suggested that who benefits from it changes over time - IIRC Obama got a boost from the EC in 2012, for example.

I can't recommend the NY Mag article I link above about this topic enough. The EC issues track the Senate issues. They are essentially the same mechanism twice now. Not by design but more so how it is evolved in practice.

I'm more worried about the Senate, because its undemocratic structure is only going to get worse over time and because it's harder to fix, since the constitution doesn't allow equal representation by state to change without a state's consent (not even by amendment). There are patches to balance the Senate politically by admitting DC + PR, but I'm not sure what else could be done, unless we start divvying up states.

This approach makes me leery. We went down this road before. The last time we were talking about adding states to fix the political situations it didn't end well. Shor in the NY Mag piece talks about even needing perhaps to include the US virgin islands in the discussion because the deficit might between 5-10 Senate seats for example.

I'm also at the point personally where I see us lying to ourselves. The system has failed. The pandemic response is the proof. To make a messy metaphor, we'll either hit bottom or we'll figure out we need to stop drinking. I'm still betting on the former because we have too many people invested in our "special" status (edit: and we have a huge oligarchic vampire that depends on the status quo) instead of realizing all institutions tend to fail and need care.

[YellowKing]

In one sense the system has failed in terms of one party being complicit in the executive branch's corruption, which eroded the checks and balances system that had worked fairly well for 200 hundred years.

In another sense, the system held in that the midterm elections allowed the House to remain a check on the President. Come November, if predictions hold true, the system will boot out the offending President and potentially the corrupt Senate.

I'm not saying that we didn't uncover severe flaws that the founding fathers never imagined. We absolutely did, and the damage Trump has done has laid the groundwork for those flaws to continue and even grow deeper as time goes on. However, the system didn't completely collapse, and a Biden victory in November coupled with a Senate takeover could go some way in righting the ship.

Obviously that doesn't mean the ship couldn't re-sink in 2024 or 2028. Unfortunately I think we're destined to be a country that pendulums back and forth between extremes every few years just due to our deep polarization.

[LawBeefaroni]

In another sense, the system held in that the midterm elections allowed the House to remain a check on the President. Come November, if predictions hold true, the system will boot out the offending President and potentially the corrupt Senate.

An executive and legislative completely dominated by one party doesn't make me feel that much better.

[El Guapo]

I'm more worried about the Senate, because its undemocratic structure is only going to get worse over time and because it's harder to fix, since the constitution doesn't allow equal representation by state to change without a state's consent (not even by amendment). There are patches to balance the Senate politically by admitting DC + PR, but I'm not sure what else could be done, unless we start divvying up states.

This approach makes me leery. We went down this road before. The last time we were talking about adding states to fix the political situations it didn't end well. Shor in the NY Mag piece talks about even needing perhaps to include the US virgin islands in the discussion because the deficit might between 5-10 Senate seats for example.

So what's the alternative? I read an argument at one point that the Reconstruction amendments acted as implicit consent for going to one unified government, allowing legislation that would change the Senate to proportionate representation. That seemed like clever bullshit to me, but maybe if we one day have a friendly Supreme Court that recognizes that the problem is bad enough to endorse 'creative' solutions.

[Smoove_B]

Right, in theory we can pull out of the nosedive. The problem is how long it takes *and* the amount of damage that's been done over the last 4 years. More specifically, it's going to take much longer to repair that damage - both domestically and internationally. But instead, we'll be very focused on the 2024 election and trying to keep the ground that was lost between 2016-2020. I think that's why this election is so important. We need to start moving in another direction and maintain that direction indefinitely. Because clearly when the GOP wrestles back control they're collectively content to let it burn to the ground. And that's not even hyperbolic - 143K+ dead Americans and a political party that still collectively enables a President. The idea that anyone would vote for a (R) candidate at this point blows my mind.

[Holman]

In another sense, the system held in that the midterm elections allowed the House to remain a check on the President. Come November, if predictions hold true, the system will boot out the offending President and potentially the corrupt Senate.

An executive and legislative completely dominated by one party doesn't make me feel that much better.

At least it's a party internally divided into factions rather than a purity cult that's too far-gone to acknowledge reality.

And the alternative is gridlock, which ensures that nothing happens when there is so much that really must be done and done soon.

[Holman]

Just curious: how would a state divide itself? What's the legal process?

Could the Mississippi legislature decide that there are now 100 sub-Mississippis, each harder to spell than the last and each having two senators?

[malchior]

In one sense the system has failed in terms of one party being complicit in the executive branch's corruption, which eroded the checks and balances system that had worked fairly well for 200 hundred years.

Have they really? That is what I'm getting at above. Mechanically it has held together but at what cost? 600K people died in the civil war when the system broke down. Somewhere between 130K and 200K people (allowing for the under count) are dead because the checks and balances haven't worked just this year. Almost entirely due to internal policy issues and inability to govern. Looking at our peers we could have kept that to some potentially much smaller fraction of that under competent leadership.

I'm not saying that we didn't uncover severe flaws that the founding fathers never imagined. We absolutely did, and the damage Trump has done has laid the groundwork for those flaws to continue and even grow deeper as time goes on. However, the system didn't completely collapse, and a Biden victory in November coupled with a Senate takeover could go some way in righting the ship.

I don't think complete collapse is in the cards. Unless this pandemic had been worse. However, what we've seen is that basic cooperation has broken down. Again this is the lying to ourselves bit. This is why I suspect we have to hit bottom. Everyone wants to rationalize all the ways the system will finally catch itself while we consistently get worse. Biden is likely going to spend 2-4 years patching damage. If we are lucky that is.

Obviously that doesn't mean the ship couldn't re-sink in 2024 or 2028. Unfortunately I think we're destined to be a country that pendulums back and forth between extremes every few years just due to our deep polarization.

And I don't think we spend time swinging back and forth. I think we might have at one time but one side has a massive built-in advantage. And they may decide that they have to use it to retain power because they know long-term that they lose.

[malchior]

Just curious: how would a state divide itself? What's the legal process?

Could the Mississippi legislature decide that there are now 100 sub-Mississippis, each harder to spell than the last and each having two senators?

Not without consent of the other states.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.